It appears that you have some anger management issues, my friend. You might want to work on the nature of your confrontational style and strive to mellow out a bit.
I don't know why you think you need to correct me, and where you believe your superior knowledge comes from, but a touch of humility might just do you some good.
Your attempts at demonstrating your superior knowledge gave me some chuckles. I worked in radio/TV for 10 years and was the Chief Engineer of a station for many years. I have designed TV cameras (albeit analog) and have designed three computers, being the chief architect for one of them, and on the design team for the first automotive engine computer.
So my credentials in both analog and digital worlds are pretty firm and covered with numerous patents.
I hate to tell you, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
Re the "First Error" please be advised that the Industry Standard definition for HD includes BOTH 720 and 1080 scan parameters. Sure the 1080 format is considerable more resolution, but again you are inappropriately focused on the wrong issue, when you keep harping on only resolution, unless you are just trying to impress someone. Your narrow focus sounds like you would buy a 4K 27" TV (if they made one) just because it has such awesome resolution.
My selection of a 720x1080 camera is based on the fact that it's image will never be used on a screen any bigger than 5-12 inches, thus it makes no sense to pay for more than I need as I am not trying to impress anyone but just get a job done in a reasonable a cost/performance manner. I assume others will have similar viewing conditions (smart phone / tablet / 32" security cam monitors / etc) and won't benefit and don't need to pay more for true HD resolution.
I'm afraid you will have to convince the European (EBU) and American (NTSC) standards organizations that they do not align with your standard definition (good luck on that) as the Industry definitions clearly include 720x1080 frames.
View attachment 8655
The EBU specification comprises 4 HDTV production systems: (NOTE the first one)
• System 1 (S1) with 1280 horizontal samples and
720 active lines in progressive scan with a frame rateof 50Hz, 16 x 9 aspect ratio.
• System 2 (S2) with 1920 horizontal samples and 1080 active lines in interlaced scan with a frame rateof 25Hz, 16 x 9 aspect ratio.
• System 3 (S3) with 1920 horizontal samples and 1080 active lines in progressive scan and a frame rateof 25Hz, 16 x 9 aspect ratio.
• System 4 (S4) with 1920 horizontal samples and 1080 active lines in progressive scan at a frame rate of50Hz, 16 x 9 aspect ratio.
Re my 2nd error. I
clearly stated 75° diagonal viewing angle. If you prefer a 70° horizontal designation, fine, but do the math they are the same and thus make you look foolish when you try to correct me and tell me to "learn the difference". Apparently
you need to learn math and how to remove the chip on your shoulder and politely interact with others.
Again with the angle you are solely focused on numbers and not on practical, and use oriented criteria. I am using the camera to monitor a front door entry area. A 70° view is more than enough (given where I have to mount the camera) to do the job and any more is just wasted clutter viewing.
To assume that I have not looked at 1080 cameras is both a false assumption and an uncalled for attack on my intelligence, again making your comment look very inconsiderate and thoughtless. Using a 1080 camera to fulfill my need brings me little advantage but more cost.
I don't think any of my above comments convey any "misinformation". I'll accept your apology (but don't expect to ever see one) for your inaccurate comment there.
Finally, I guess "beauty" must be in the eye of the beholder as I fail to see any greater beauty in the Hikvison unit on the right and the Foscam on the left (which I think is actually better looking).
View attachment 8657
Bottom line. It sure does appear that for whatever reasons you have a great dislike of Foscam and it has clearly colored your objectivity and blinded you to possible progress they may have made over time.
I don't claim they are the best, and I agree they have shortcomings in their interfaces and firmware, but for some applications they may be a good price/performance fit to some user's needs and your closed mind and negative comments may prevent some folks from finding a perfectly adequate and low cost solution.
I think you would do more justice to this forum by giving people knowledge (good/bad/indifferent) so they can make their own "informed" decisions, rather than ranting on with selected negative comments that don't even appear to be accurate and up to date.
Just sayin'